|
poo poo, now he has to kill us all
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 13:59 |
|
|
Phanatic posted:If you're not allowed to tell us which one, then you're not allowed to tell us about its existence at all. That's false.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 03:54
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:That's false. Oh, well, I can: The SS-27. Good thing I'm not read into your codeword program there, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 03:59
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Oh, well, I can: The SS-27. Good thing I'm not read into your codeword program there, I guess. angry about wiki ITT
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 04:03
|
|
|
wait does this mean you don't have to kill us all
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 04:04
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:wait does this mean you don't have to kill us all Just because I don't have to doesn't mean I won't 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 04:06
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Just because I don't have to doesn't mean I won't brb buying a bunker
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 04:09
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:brb buying a bunker poo poo, gonna go requisition a bunker buster
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 04:11
|
|
mlmp08 posted:poo poo, gonna go requisition a bunker buster My bunker is across the street from the Chinese Embassy.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:My bunker is across the street from the Chinese Embassy.  INTERNATIONAL INCIDENT also, I bought one of these, good luck   Hope you like being burned alive underground.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 04:18
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:My bunker is across the street from the Chinese Embassy. Just like jesus always wanted us to do. grover fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Jan 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 04:18
|
|
|
Wouldn't 5 JDAMS be more historically accurate?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
Assassinations happen. By Phanatic rule of international law, I must now reveal exactly how they were done and who committed all the assassinations that have taken place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Such as? Here's something the Brits did in the seventies. It's only an MRV solution more or less but then again Pershing II already had MARV covered in that timeframe. I'd guess these things can be combined into one system these days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevaline
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 04:27
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:
If something's so secret that you're not allowed to talk about it, then you probably shouldn't talk about it. One of the GIP guys ended up having the USAF security people jumping into his poo poo with all their boots because of that. Don't dance around it, don't go right up to the line where you're legally not allowed to be more specific, just...don't talk about it. There's stuff I'm not allowed to talk about. So I don't talk about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 04:37
|
|
|
No, I'm really not dancing around things. I'm talking about things that are hosted on any number of open source sites. I'm just not talking about specific systems and the extent of their capabilities. For example, there are stealthy aircraft, but there's a big difference between saying the F-22 is stealthy and listing the specific dB's it puts off from various aspects, or saying "this radar is highly capable" versus listing all of its capabilities. edit: seriously, as shown by the fact that you can wiki poo poo I wasn't saying, I am being intentionally overly obtuse. edit2: in case that wasn't clear, what I'm saying is that I'm more likely to not answer a question and cite opsec than I am to answer a question which is questionable. So if anything, I could have answered you, but chose not to. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Jan 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 05:00
|
|
|
This is TFR. You're more likely to be killed to protect pumpkins, not secrets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 07:08
|
|
|
RE: Marine organic air support I'd rather see the f-35B money sent to develop the follow on technology to the Sikorsky X-2 program, the S-97 Raider and derivatives. I think something like that would be much more useful to the marine's stated mission of supporting an amphibious invasion force. Hell, with it's maneuverability, I bet it could even hold it's own in a WVR dogfight. BVR not so much, but lets be honest, the marines aren't invading anything until we own the skies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTM6S7kh48o&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lyIkxq-dnI
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 08:44
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The USMC is basically the military version of that 20 year old kid who talks non stop about how important it is to be independent, self-sufficient, and free while living in his parents' basement and eating all their groceries. Shack, x-ring, whatever other military analogies for spot on you care to use. I'll have some more thoughts about the STOVL thing tomorrow, but I will fully admit to throwing up the Henderson Field strawman...I just can't help myself. However, that desire to have the MEU operate independently from an amphib as a MAGTF traces its lineage back to the fallout from Guadalcanal/Henderson Field, even if there have been other developments and arguments since then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 08:52
|
|
Phanatic posted:And he seems to be a big fan of the Hornet. He's got a whole section in that article, "ARGUMENTS FOR THE F/A-18F," where he's basically saying (I think) that the USMC should operate Hornets off of Navy carriers: The gist of what I got: He argues that the Marine Corps should purchase whatever F-35Bs are necessary to meet MEU ACE requirements and the balance Super Hornets to fly off of carriers/paved runways rather than convert the entire fixed wing compliment of the Marine Corps to F-35Bs and a few F-35Cs. Other than flying off of amphibs, there isn't any demonstrable need for STOVL aircraft. It's expensive, complicated, eats fuel and lessens payload. The concept of basing Harriers close to the fight was proven unnecessary and untenable in OIF. But, he accepts that the MEU concept doesn't work without fixed wing air in the ACE. Also: The F-35 is a radical departure from previous Marine aircraft procurement efforts. Instead of picking up some older proven aircraft or piggybacking off of Navy procurement, they're going all in, and essentially independently, on an expensive program with no fallback option(Likely intentional). iyaayas01 posted:Shack, x-ring, whatever other military analogies for spot on you care to use. Shack? Also, sure. WWII, not just Guadalcanal, is responsible for the Marine Corps we know today. CAS, amphibious ops, etc.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 10:31
|
|
|
Oh look F-35 talk! ~*sukhois for all*~
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2012 03:03
|
|
|
So, in the conspiracy thread there was a post about how the Khmer Rouge wasn't violent and the Killing Fields was a CIA backed plot to paint communism as evil. Or something. That's not why I'm posting, though. I'm more posting because my knowledge of the greater Sino/Soviet split and the multiple facets of it are woefully inadequate. At various times the Khmer Rouge was sponsored by ASEAN nations, North Korea, European powers, and the US. This was targeted at weakening Vietnamese and Russian influence in the region. Related to this is the Chinese invasion of Vietnam, the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, and the Sino/Soviet border clashes. Seeing as how this thread focuses mainly on the US/USSR aspect of the Cold War, I figured I'd maybe get a discussion going on the communist in-fighting of the era, and maybe some of the brush wars like India and Pakistan, China and India, and the things I mentioned above. Anyone have any info, theories or interesting stories relating to this? I have a pretty basic understanding of most of it, but it's an aspect of the Cold War that doesn't get talked about much and as I've been going through Wikipedia there's some interesting stuff out there. I mean, how many people know that the US supported Pol Pot in a roundabout way? Or that after the Vietnamese invasion the UN recognized the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia? e- poo poo, this doesn't even have to be Asian centric, things like Cuban involvement in Africa and other stuff like that would be great, too. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Jan 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:So, in the conspiracy thread there was a post about how the Khmer Rouge wasn't violent and the Killing Fields was a CIA backed plot to paint communism as evil. Crossposting from the other thread. quote:The US and China were more or less cooperating on the foreign policy front for most of the 1980s up to 1989, with Tiananmen and the collapse of the USSR. The American documentary Red Dawn makes reference to this. Americans purchased Chinese weapons through Pakistan to supply the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, including (if some books on this are to be believed) supplying captured Russian shoulder launched SAMs and other weapons to the Chinese in order to copy and send back to Afghanistan. American Stingers were later supplied due to the Russian SA-7s being...not very good. The US and China also supported Jonas Savimbi's UNITA against the Warsaw Pact backed MPLA and Cuba (whole units of Cuba regular forces were deployed to Angloa
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2012 04:04
|
|
|
Nice! I knew the Cubans had been deployed in Angola for years now, but I only started reading into it in depth a few weeks ago. When I saw what they had committed to the effort in terms of men, it got a  out of me as well.That's a really interesting conflict because it had everything. South Africans, the US, USSR, Cubans, mercenaries, you name it. All it needed was lost treasure and a hot girl to save and you basically have a movie trilogy waiting to be made.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2012 06:51
|
|
|
Veins McGee posted:The gist of what I got: "Shack" is pilot slang for a direct hit on a bombing target. My new job has me working closely with ops, and their slang has infiltrated my speech. I would agree with your assessment of the article...land based STOVL ops always have been and always will be stupid, even more so now that the Cold War is over. The one big drawback was always logistics, although at least during the Cold War you could use the canard of "well if the Soviets crater our runway but somehow are stupid enough to leave the rest of the base's support poo poo intact we can operate off of a taxiway or something," which was still retarded but at least made more sense than "no bro, we're gonna set up a FARP for a bunch of fighter jets...you know, those things that have entire gigantic bases built up to support them, it's gonna be sweet dude...by the way, what's this 'logistics' thing you keep talking about? Don't we have squids to handle that poo poo for us?" (I kid, I kid). However, today as he points out there is the additional drawback of risking a loving supersonic ostensibly stealthy fighter on the front lines where some podunk farmer with a mortar could take out a $100 million+ plus asset. Also, I think your summary of his assessment regarding the procurement process is spot on...the USMC has absolutely no one but themselves to blame for the mess they are in with the JSF and fixed wing STOVL, but hell, that's the case with everyone who is involved with that abortion of a program. The really funny thing is that between the -B and -C I'm not sure which version is in more trouble at the moment. That said, I still can't support fixed wing STOVL fighters from the amphibs. The problem as I see it is that an amphib can't sustain the throughput necessary to sustain both a CAP and strike missions with the standard complement of STOVL aircraft on board (6 Harriers with a Wasp-class, 6 F-35Bs with an America-class) when a MEU is embarked; you can have one or the other but you can't have both simultaneously, and a MEU operating in an environment that calls for fixed wing fighter support is almost certainly going to need both (AEGIS is great, but you need more). If you are going to up the number of aircraft, then you have little reason for a MEU to be embarked (absolutely none in the case of the America-class, since they don't have a well deck so if there are limited/no helos on board those Marines aren't going anywhere) and that's setting aside the fact that if there is a threat somewhere that requires us to put 20 STOVL fighters on an amphib, it's probably a big enough threat to send a CSG or two to deal with...the SCS concept was originally intended to basically substitute the MEU for a shitload of ASW stuff. It was never intended to operate in a true "sea control" role like the CVBG/CSG does, because to do so would basically be getting 15% of the capability at 50% of the cost; a more accurate description would have been "anti-submarine escort carrier," but "sea control ship" sounds so much cooler. I understand how the MAGTF is supposed to work, and I support it (unlike most AF guys I'm pretty okay with the MAGTF getting first crack at utilizing USMC fixed wing air support as opposed to having it all thrown under the C/JFACC's control like our doctrine calls for), but I just don't see the need for fixed wing STOVL fighters to operate from the amphibs, for the reasons previously discussed, especially now given the cost/complexity/damage to an already flawed program. I will add that Libya was an outlier...if we hadn't had the land bases in Italy/Crete/Spain/the rest of Europe we would have sent a CSG or two to fight the air war because fighting an entire air war from an amphib is a ludicrous idea, and the Harriers didn't make that big of a contribution because as previously mentioned STOVL fighters have steep disadvantages in payload/range/performance. They took part because they were there with the MEU (which was there for other reasons...personnel recovery and providing a credible landing deterrent threat high on the list) and DoD is like the Special Olympics: everyone gets to play, not because they brought some unique desperately needed capability to the fight. However, I will propose an alternative (one that the author of that AFJ piece hints at): light turboprop STOL attack aircraft. It's been done before:  (click through for huge) While I still maintain that there is no way in hell the MEU needs a supersonic stealthy STOVL fighter (or really a STOVL fighter or any sort) because operating against a MEU against a high end threat like that will necessitate sending a CSG (operate Marine Super Bugs off of the carrier to keep the MAGTF intact), I will acknowledge the fact that fixed wing aircraft can provide heavier/more flexible/faster support than attack helos and that the MEU might be deployed against some tinpot dictator with a couple of semi-grounded lovely fighters or something that would be nice to have something to throw against beyond Cobras, just in case. The AF and Navy both have nascent programs going with Super Tucanos...just something to think about. VikingSkull posted:Nice! I knew the Cubans had been deployed in Angola for years now, but I only started reading into it in depth a few weeks ago. When I saw what they had committed to the effort in terms of men, it got a I would seriously pay good money for a quality movie to be made about the Angolan Bush War. (Actually, I'd probably pay good money for a quality movie to be made about the other Rhodesian Bush War as well.) It was posted a page or two back, but if you are at all interested in the Bush Wars, you should really read this link... ming-the-mazdaless posted:Also of interest in the fixed wing vs attack helicopters argument: Great read. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Jan 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2012 08:14
|
|
|
rossmum posted:Oh look F-35 talk! This picture is loving amazing. Never stop posting Ross  Of course, all this MiG/Sukhoi chat is making me tempted to buy Flaming Cliffs 2 even though I've barely started A10C and not put much into Black Shark yet. 
Xerxes17 fucked around with this message at 08:30 on Jan 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2012 08:26
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:: light turboprop STOL attack aircraft. It's been done before: As much as I love the bronco, as I was saying above, dumping f-35 money into sikorsky's compound helos gets you drat near OV-10 capabilities (in the larger follow on projects), with helicopter bennies on the side. I really think something like that is exactly what the marines need. Amazingly we've had the basic technology for 40 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_(helicopter) . The contra-rotating main rotor just wraps it up in a neat bow. The cheyenne wasn't just cool for that either, the whole gunner's seat rotated Last Starfighter style! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE0CrIup6Uc
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2012 08:40
|
|
|
The Gods Must Be Crazy II has a running bit where there is a Cuban soldier and an Angolan soldier who repeatedly take each other prisoner. Pretty much the only thing I've ever seen on that conflict in film though (and it's played for laughs pretty much)
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2012 10:06
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I would seriously pay good money for a quality movie to be made about the Angolan Bush War. (Actually, I'd probably pay good money for a quality movie to be made about the other Rhodesian Bush War as well.) It was posted a page or two back, but if you are at all interested in the Bush Wars, you should really read this link... Wow, I had missed that link. Exactly the stuff I was looking for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2012 14:23
|
|
|
wkarma posted:As much as I love the bronco, as I was saying above, dumping f-35 money into sikorsky's compound helos gets you drat near OV-10 capabilities (in the larger follow on projects), with helicopter bennies on the side. I really think something like that is exactly what the marines need. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=g0R1ISQAmqk 
grover fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Jan 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2012 14:36
|
|
|
Except that it was ridiculously expensive, carried a small payload, and was way too fragile for use in a combat theater. The Army used the money to upgrade the existing fleet of UH-60's, buy the LUH, and was going to buy the ARH, except that program has been a huge headache. Still looks cool though.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2012 15:01
|
|
|
It still boggles my mind how expensive Sled Driver still is, and how there hasn't been a reprint of it that didn't cost 2 grand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2012 15:41
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:It still boggles my mind how expensive Sled Driver still is, and how there hasn't been a reprint of it that didn't cost 2 grand. The Military-Industrial Complex can't even get books on budget. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2012 15:48
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Except that it was ridiculously expensive, carried a small payload, and was way too fragile for use in a combat theater. The Army used the money to upgrade the existing fleet of UH-60's, buy the LUH, and was going to buy the ARH, except that program has been a huge headache.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
I see your Comanche and raise you a Ka-50 Hokum:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHyVNdZfILE  (Goddamn it is hard to find good pictures of the Ka-50 firing)
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2012 16:35
|
|
|
grover posted:That, and it's intended role was largely made obsolete by Predator and Reaper drones. But it's still a pretty awesome helicopter. It provided an awesome series of videogames at least!
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
wkarma posted:As much as I love the bronco, as I was saying above, dumping f-35 money into sikorsky's compound helos gets you drat near OV-10 capabilities (in the larger follow on projects), with helicopter bennies on the side. I really think something like that is exactly what the marines need. If we're going to bring up the Cheyenne, we have to bring up the original Blackhawk, the S-67 Blackhawk.  It's basically the US version of the bastard child of a Hind A and a Hind D. It could carry 8 troops, travel 220 mph, withstand .50 cal fire, carry up to 24 tow missiles.  It was supposed to replace the Cheyenne but instead it was passed over for the program that eventually made the Apache. The S-67 was made with internal R&D funds, just like the F-20 Tigershark, so once no on picked it up it was shuttered. The only model crashed in an airshow accident in 74 and Sikorsky ended the program for good. Here's a delightfully early 70's film by Sikorsky promoting the chopper.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
Love the ballin' 70's music. And it's modern version, the Battlehawk.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGuds5-fSTc Armyman25 fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Jan 21, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
rossmum posted:Oh look F-35 talk! I like how you think.    The guy who made these has a ton of "what ifs" on his site.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2012 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 13:59 |
|
|
Wow, I didn't even know that helicopter was a Thing before. I'd heard of the Cheyenne and what happened to it, but that thing... wow. To think that, were it not for internal politics and inter-service rivalry, not to mention a healthy measure of backwards thinking by brass, the US and its allies could've had troops riding into combat on a helicopter which can then provide them air cover while they run around with their .280 bullpup rifles...  The worst part, though, isn't the things we all could've had; it's the people who mindlessly parrot the opinion that everything the US makes or purchases is the best in the world, all foreign equipment (especially Russian) is inferior caveman junk, and that everyone should buy American gear regardless of its suitability to their needs. The list of incredibly advanced or simply good gear canned or overlooked for US-made equipment is pretty depressingly long. Does the RAAF need a semi-stealthy (yeah, okay), short-legged strike fighter? Probably not. Look at the list of countries who may possibly have a beef with us in the future; most of them are a fair distance away and not exactly at the cutting edge of military technology anyway. We just need a good, long-ranging strike aircraft that can carry a large payload, which is exactly what we had in the Pig. If the Americans hadn't persuaded us to buy it, and the British hadn't dropped the ball by cancelling the TSR.2, we would've had that instead - probably the most capable aircraft in its role at the time, certainly so until the Pig's bugs were ironed out. Either way, a good fit for the need. But nope, the Americans are selling F-35s, we'll buy what they're selling. The Abrams. Why is a country with so much goddamn empty space buying something that guzzles fuel as badly as the Abrams? There's nothing really wrong with the tank if you can keep it supplied, but why not buy Leo 2s to replace the retired Leo AS1? Challenger 2s? Nothing is going to change as long as people fail to recognise that hey, this obscure thing here is pretty neat, or well, this US-made thing could use some improvements! America makes some cool stuff, it's just not the best stuff. And, big surprise, it's usually tailored more to the needs of the US than its far-flung allies. Bottom line: buy Challengers and Sukhois (and blot out the sun with the Sukhois because gently caress summer) rossmum fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Jan 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2012 00:46
|
|